I've been working as the Social Media Editor and a staff writer at Forbes since October 2011. Prior to that, I worked as a freelance writer and contributor here. On this blog, I focus on futurism, cutting edge technology, and breaking research. Follow me on Twitter - @thealexknapp. You can email me at aknapp@forbes.com

SpaceX's Reusable Grasshopper Rocket Has A Successful Test

One of the things that makes space travel so expensive is the fact that rockets, for the most part, can’t be reused. So everytime you launch something into orbit, you have to rebuild part of the vehicle. So it’s been a long-term goal of many space organizations, both public and private, to build a fully reusable launch system. To date, however, the best anyone’s been able to do is to only be able to reuse parts of a rocket.

Earlier this week, however, SpaceX took itself one step closer to its goal of a reusable rocket with a successful test of its “Grasshopper” rocket, which consists of the first stage of one of their Falcoln 9 rockets, but with a vertical takeoff and landing system. The rocket traveled 12 stories into the air, hovered for a little bit, then safely landed back down on the ground. The total flight lasted for 29 seconds.

(Also, to give people an idea of how big the Grasshopper is, SpaceX CEO tweeted this image, which shows a six-foot tall dummy of a cowboy on board the rocket.)

With the success of this test, SpaceX plans on continuing testing over the next few months, pushing it towards its goal of a successful orbital flight and landing.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

There are those who believe that the government subsidizing innovative technologies is a waste of tax dollars. Some feel the Green Energy initiatives are a booddoggle and they point to failures such as Solyndra to prove their point.

But I view things differently and I feel the space program supports my position. Since I was a child, NASA had led American efforts in space and has accomplished great things but at a tremendous cost. These costs were too great for “for profit” companies to accept and so I believe the exploration and eventual exploitation of space would have been put off for decades, if not centuries, if governments had not been involved.

The interesting thing about government programs, in most companies, the government does not actually produce the innovations that it uses, it contracts with for profit companies to develop the technology it needs. When it does this, the knowledge that is gained does not only belong to the government but it is understood by the companies with the contracts. In time, this is public knowledge.

So after decades, we have reached the point where for profit companies are beginning to consider space an acceptable investment risk and we have gotten there because government paved the way. I believe that government can play an important role in the development of new technology and it is tax dollars that are well spent. Failure is part of the process but it does not lessen the value of the end results.

It’s refreshing, exciting, and hopeful to watch American innovative, spirited, efficient private enterprise take the lead….After 40+ years of bloated big Govt NASA wasting $500+ billion on dead end, pork driven manned space boondoggles like Shuttle, ISS, Constellation… SpaceX boosters and capsules are far advanced beyond anything Nasa is capable of…. Produced for $300 million while Nasa wasted $20+ billion on it’s failed/cancelled Constellation earmarked pork disaster… The US Space Program is too important to be further entrusted to our pork driven, greedy, incompetent Federal Govt…. and we must not waste more decades and 100s of $billions on big govt Nasa pork, waste, incompetence.

FYI, The Grasshopper is just a testbed, and is not itself intended to become a full-fledged space launch vehicle. It’s only meant to test and validate specific technologies that could be used to make a reusable rocket. After those technologies and systems are validated through Grasshopper, they could be incorporated into a modified version of the Falcon-9 launch vehicle, which has speculatively been named F9R (Falcon-9 Reusable). Grasshopper is built out of regular steel and has some tanks and a single Merlin-1D rocket engine on the bottom, along with some legs. That’s not nearly enough to make it to orbit. Their current testing license allows them to fly upto 3500 meters in altitude, and they’ll probably have to shift to an official testing range like White Sands if they want to go higher. They’d probably have to build a better version to do that anyway.

Grashopper is the prototype of the next generation SpaceX booster…. Fuel cost is only a tiny part of booster mission cost… reusable boosters will dramatically reduce the cost of access to space..

Nasa has wasted the 40 years since Apollo… after promising a shuttle for $7 million/flight ‘cheap, safe, reliable access to space’… Nasa delivered a $1.5 billion/flight white elephant boondoggle, which killed 2 crew and had several multi-year service outages… Nasa’s shuttle was the most unaffordable, dangerous, unreliable space vehicle in history.. then Nasa’s failed/cancelled $20 billion Constellation was more proof of Nasa incompetence..

Private enterprise like SpaceX is determined to open space affordably to all Americans, not just a few a few dozen Govt selected ‘astronaut’ joyriders flying at $billions each…

More smoke and mirrors from Elon Musk. This concept is both wasteful and dangerous. The gross expenditure of propellants to accomplish what amounts to a launch in reverse is silly and stupid, particularly when there are far more efficient means (lifting body, wings or parachutes) of recovering reusable space vehicles. The potential for a landing catastrophe is substantial, with the possibility of unexpected cross-winds, engine failure during a throttled landing phase, or other situations that could result in a landing abort. Musk is a media darling and a political crony who plays both sides of the political party campaign funding game, so this nutty idea will not draw the widespread laughter and derision that it merits. Musk will probably receive even more taxpayer-backed loans and federal gifts for staging this goofy and precedented demonstration. The gullibility of US media is staggeringly prolific at this point in history.

Jim The SpaceX Falcon heavy booster can launch TWICE the Shuttle payload for less than 1/10th the shuttle cost… Using ‘grasshopper’ technology will produce a further quantum reduction in costs, as fuel is only a tiny part of the booster cost..

Private enterprise advanced Aviation from the Wright Brothers to affordable intercontinental jet travel for tens of thousands of Americans in only 50 years… But big govt Nasa grabbed a US space monopoly.. so 50 years after John Glenn only a few dozen Govt selected Astros have flown at $billions each… Now, after 40 years of bloated, pork driven, top-heavy Nasa manned space incompetence, pork, and waste…… Spirited, efficient, innovative private enterprise is taking the lead to open space for all Americans…..

ameriman, I do not actually disagree with most of your points but do believe that without government involvement, up to this point, space exploration and exploitation would not be happening. The government’s seed money was necessary to get us to this point.

believe that without government involvement, up to this point, space exploration and exploitation would not be happening. ====== == based on what? With Govt monopoly over US space, our capabilities (boosters/capsules) gone BACKWARD since Apollo ended… in 1969 we had Saturn/Apollo, nearly the capability to send men to Mars.. But Govt/NASA greedily and arrogantly asserted A MONOPOLY ON US SPACE FLIGHT… our greedy Govt banned BY LAW the development of US private boosters/vehicles to maintain Govt monopoly….. while Nasa cynically sold Americans/Congress a ‘cheap, safe, reliable access to space’ Shuttle nasa KNEW could and would not reach any of it’s goals..

Over 40 years and over $500 billion later the same greedy, bloated Nasa CAN’T EVEN REACH LOW EARTH ORBIT…

This is what you are defending?

Ronald Reagan rescinded Nasa’s cynical and greedy monopoly on US space efforts.. and now finally SpaceX shows us what private enterprise COULD and SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN the 1970s or before… Instead of greedy/incompetent/pork driven Govt/Nasa WASTING 40+ years and hundreds of billions on Govt waste… Imagine what private enterprise like SpaceX, men like Elon Musk, could have done with that time and $s…. rather than flushing it down the Govt/Nasa greedy toilet of pork, red-tape, top-heavy bureaucracy…

I watched Americans walk on the Moon… dreamed of what else I would see in my lifetime… lunar colonies, Americans on Mars, trips to asteroids… Taxpayers paid the price… but Govt/Nasa squandered the time and resources……

As always, Govt is the problem, not the solution…. and the US space program is too important to be further entrusted to our parasitic, greedy, incompetent, pork driven Federal Govt.

Also, the fuel used in a powered landing of a near-empty stage with no payload is a tiny fraction of the fuel used in the launch itself. A powered landing is COMPLETELY different from a “launch in reverse”. The thrust/weight ratio of the rocket is dramatically higher without an upper stage or payload attached, and with a near-empty fuel tank, so a small amount of fuel can produce large changes in velocity. To do a landing, you primarily just need a relatively short burn to set up a trajectory back toward the launch site, and then a short burn near the ground to touch down (plus a few tiny course correction burns). Most of the work in a landing is done by gravity (getting to the ground) and air resistance (slowing to terminal velocity), while a large portion of the energy in a launch is spent fighting against those forces the whole way up.